SonicWall TZ is an entry to mid-tier NGFW for small to mid-sized companies. It is a Unified Threat Management solution, with additional native decryption and deep-packet inspection capabilities.
$329.60
UniFi Cloud Gateways
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
Ubiquiti Networks supports enterprise network security and wireless WAN via the WiFi integrated UniFi Cloud Gateways, including the Dream Router 7, and the UniFi Express 7.
We found SonicWall TZ licencing to be far simpler than barracuda options for the use cases we needed. We have run several other barracuda products andover time have swithced away fro other offerings - mostly due to the ease of use of the GUI. We also had much better support …
SonicWall TZ is good at some things but overall I would pick Fortinet and UDM-Pro appliances most of the time and their VPN solution does not require paid license. Interface more modern and intuitive. Overall, better bang for your buck.
SonicWall TZ was a no brainer to choose over Fortigate or pfSense. We had used Fortigate units in the past and, in our experience, the interface is terrible, both on the device and the cloud side. There are constant updates that require you to jump through hoops to upgrade and …
We were using the cisco asa but there are lots of security features that are missing in these devices. SonicWall is a combination in advanced security and advanced routing. You can easy to use this firewall.
We chose the Sonicwall TZ250 because it has reliability in the Dell Sonicwall brand. It is a reliable product, with excellent support and warranty with face-to-face service should the need arise. It is cheaper than the competition, does not take up rack space, does not heat up, …
We like it is a small, portable, and has many features. I have confidence in the brand a long time. Support was also a differential to make the decision.
Pretty much similar functionality. SonicWall TZ400 compared to ASA 5506 has better hardware performance. SonicWall licenses cost less money which makes it better for the same needs and functionality. However, the Cisco ASA Internet unity and knowledge base are bigger then …
Our previous firewall, from Xyzell, couldn't handle the bandwidth that video files needed within the internal LAN, so we looked at alternatives. SonicWall came recommend by a different IT professional for its solid performance and good documentation. We further researched the …
SonicWall and WatchGuard are both fine appliances, but I am accustomed to the Barracuda NG. The Barracuda Control Center is so powerful and useful that it beats out the other two. SonicWall does a great job of dividing up firewall rules and NAT policies, but this is a …
Costs, features and ease of use were the determining factors. The UI alone outweighs the CLI from the ASA and SRX, features were easier to understand and licenses were more easily obtained.
We have transitioned third-party partners and our own internal offices away from consumer, prosumer, or SOHO grade systems such as high-end ASUS, TP-Link, and even Xiaomi routers. For the same money, we can have a more properly architected network that has better performance, …
Prior to this, we used Cisco Meraki wireless access points, which did not allow for centralized control, therefore several access points shared the same SSID. Because the client's movement from one device to another was not as seamless and reliable as it is with the current …
Wifi signal and management are superior. I have many Sonicwall TZ units with Wifi that are basically useless and added a Ubiquiti unit in place of the Sonicwall Wifi. Netgear nighthawk has a good wifi system but doesn't have the range Ubiquiti does. Netgear is great for the …
In the past, we used D-Link wi-fi devices, where centralized management was not possible, distributing the same SSID through several devices. Which cost configuration time and instability in the use between one point and another, because eventually, this transition between a …
When looking into Cisco options for WWAN, there were two issues we encountered. Up front as well as yearly maintenance costs for each device was considerably more expensive than the Ubiquiti options. And, although the Cisco options have more options to configure, it requires …
amer is literally rebranded Ubiquiti wireless points. They make you pay the annual fee. We cancelled our contract and were able to wipe the firmware and add them back to the Ubiquiti controller. Amer is a big waste of money.
Good price for scope of functionality Challenge for those that are not highly technical Many options within Firewall Setting that need to understood to maximize use of the device. Would be nice to see some sort of configuration wizard to assist in configuring unit.
The Ubiquiti Wireless WAN solution can be used in both small and large corporate environments. However, as it has a rather high cost, its cost-benefit is greater in medium and large corporations, as small corporations may not take advantage of as many resources as the integration between Wi-Fi devices. In medium and large corporations, resources like this represent a very great facility in network management and in the availability of the connection in a transparent way at different points of the company, together with the security of isolated networks logically being made available by the same Wi-Fi device.
management is confusing has many items that could be improved to facilitate the work to the network administrator
in the diagnostic tool I would improve the response times, that is, if a ping test is required, it should be quick, since in cases of failures it is sought to minimize the impact as much as possible.
each function has a different license item, I would place a single license package for all team functions
Overall the new interface is very logical and easy to navigate. We did struggle at first coming from the older interface and finding our way around the new. But our new users found it very simple to find what they were looking for. One negative we do all struggle with is packet cpature not always being clear how its set/what is being monitored. this could do with more information on teh intial page instead of having to look for it
Once you get to a competent technician the support experience is better. But I have found that the lower tiers of support are very slow to respond (like 1 email per day) and you typically have to re-explain yourself a couple times before they get it. I have not used Phone support, and that may be a better experience.
We have not needed to contact support, except to replace one device that was damaged in shipping. The company immediately issued an RMA without delay, and we had our replacement product within a week
SonicWall and WatchGuard are both fine appliances, but I am accustomed to the Barracuda NG. The Barracuda Control Center is so powerful and useful that it beats out the other two. SonicWall does a great job of dividing up firewall rules and NAT policies, but this is a preference among engineers.
Prior to this, we used Cisco Meraki wireless access points, which did not allow for centralized control, therefore several access points shared the same SSID. Because the client's movement from one device to another was not as seamless and reliable as it is with the current Ubiquiti solution, this shift cost both time and stability during configuration.